click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
israel. that is why iran and hezbollah are massively stepping up their support of the job -- assad regime. they provide fighters on the ground. much of this weaponry is close to iraq. that cannot continue without consequences. unfortunately, jihadists groups are gaining popularity. they have convinced too syrians that they are on their side. many others are preparing for the day after his fall. syrian extremists are translating their battle success into authority over society as a whole, influencing schools and mosques. most of those extremists are from outside syria. many have shared with us their concerns about the influx of these foreign fighters. there are concerns with these extremists. to avoid a hostile syria armed with chemical weapons, we need to help better organize and empower the syrian opposition. though syrians who began the revolt by chanting, peaceful, peaceful. we have let them down. others worry about it deeply prolonged engagement. the british and the french have come to realize that the biggest winner has been assad. everything should be considered, but the u.s. could
of hezbollah, israel, between 2006 and 2009, went to the right. both the public opinion and the government. so the drama of the collision between the president seeking to draw close to arab and muslims and israeli government veering to the right, intensified the tension that manifested itself at the time. and add to this the fact that between the president and the prime minister at that time, there was no trust. i mean both ambassador indyk and myself sat on wt is normally known as one-on-one, but always is two on two because there has to be a notetaker. and both of us were fortunate enough to take notes in very decisive meetings between clinton, rabin and so forth. and you can see what happens when the two decision makers like each other and trust each other. and when they don't. and unfortunately, during the first four years there was a lack of trust between obama and netanyahu. and this is something that will transpire later but to me, e of the most important potential outcomes of this visit would be to restore or to build from the outset. >> rose: a relationship between netanyahu and obama
and conventional weapons. you have refugee problems on the turkish border. the al qaeda/hezbollah action in syria is very, very concerning to recognize terrorist organizations. this is real trouble real quick. if you want a diplomatic solution -- and i still think there's one possible -- you can't do it if you have no credibility with the opposition and no credibility with our arab league partners. and right now we find ourselves in that spot. so you have to build that credibility. this is not boots on the ground, by the way. i want to make that very clear, we don't need 101st airborne division showing up. >> when you said boots on the groupd, am i wrong? i thought you said over the weekend that you joined in with senator mccain and senator levin, and you want some kind of special forces to go in with syria to identify, locate, or somehow get the chemical weapons back. hence i call that boots on the ground. >> i think it's really important to be clear about what we're trying to do here. we have small groups, special capability forces that we can add to the mix here that does t doesn't -- is not
in a last, desperate attempt to hold up -- you know to keep assad in power. hezbollah fighters are coming in and they are being armed with weapons from iran, flying over iraqi air space. starting immediately, iraq should heed the warn from this united states and disallow these military flights over its air space. >> shannon: quickly, we are almost out of time. a final thought here on this issue? >> well, i agree with what the chairman just said. i think in a bipartisan manner, congress needs to, obviously, try to -- to take control of this. assad is a brutal dictator and from a humanitarian point of view, he needs to g. but another thing ask thaiz very important. assad is iran's guy. assad, if he goes is a blow to iran. weapons going into lebanon, when the second lob none war was over between ezhezbollah and israel, hezbollah would not be allowed to re-arm. hezbollah is two or three times as strong as they were. they have been re-arming from iran, through syria, into lebanon. so assad is a bad guy. he is iran's guy. he has a stake in this and so do we. we ought to exert. it i think it's v
as the country fragments following in the hands of al qaeda, maybe hezbollah and being used against israel in jerusalem and all around this country, shep. >> shepard: ed, it still seems unclear whether either side used chemical weapons. >> that's right. now, the israeli intelligence minister today said he believes that chemical weaponsy were, in fact, used. the republican house intelligence chairman mike rogers back in washington went on cbs news and said he also believes that chemical weapons have been used inside syria in recent days. he added an important caveat. take a listen. >> there is a high probability that a chemical agent was used in aleppo. now, again, i'm an old fbi guy. i like to see forensic evidence. >> now, on top of all of this, there was testimony today in a house committee where the u.s. ambassador to syria basically said that he believes that the syrian regime has now lost control of the border with turkey and iraq and in jordan tonight which the president by the way will be visiting on friday. there is fears about a refugee crisis. refugee spilling out of syria into j
and the opposition. it is a regional war by proxy. you have rapp and iraq and hezbollah supporting him. on the other hand you have turkey and qatar. not only a regional war by proxy. you have russia and the united states. i would argue that president barack obama has been reluctant to intervene directly by either providing arms to the opposition or sending american boots on the ground. what i like to see is a concerted effort on the part of the united states, leading the effort to really broker a political settlement, a diplomatic solution. there is no military solution in syria. syria is not libya. even though i would argue that the rebels will ultimately win there particular struggle in the long term, we don't know. one or two years. at the end of it, there will be no syria as we know it. there will be no state as we know it. and more important from my point of view, there will be the social fabric, the diversity would most likely be destroyed. not to mention the that i willover effects from syria into will he be none and jordan into iraq and even into turkey. >> wow! a dramatic scene that you pai
. you have thousands now of al qaeda fighters joining the fight here and hezbollah. you have chemical weapons at stake and veconventional weapon at stake. we're one of the few nations with the capability to train people. it's about small groups, special capabilities, so that you leverage our credibility so we can get a diplomatic solution and secure those weapon systems. that's a good day for america, but you have to make the decision to move forward. again, i think indecision here at this point, given the way we see what's happening on the ground, is dangerous for our national security. >> worth pointing out again, some 70,000 people have been killed as this fight has continued on. chairman rogers, great to see you, thank you so much. we'll continue talking about this very important issue. >> thanks, kate, and welcome back. >>> the last time prince harry visited the u.s., he ended up needing to explain some scandalous nude pictures taken in las vegas. well, he's just scheduled another u.s. visit. find out where he is and isn't going. coming up next. acceler-rental. at a hertz express
will use it. the real danger is hezbollah gets it and would use it on israel. that's the great fear that i have. >>brian: general, how do you know all this stuff about agents? was that a focus of yours? >> i used to be in command of a unit that used to have that mission before we signed the chemical weapons treaty. i'm intimately familiar with using them, storing them, putting them on airplanes. this is with fighters we had them. and that is a very difficult area to work on. and i had a great deal of experience with that. of course we no longer use them and it's no longer in our inventory. >>brian: we know the president said that's a red line. we think we know where this stuff is housed. can we go with an airstrike, blow it up and not poison the surrounding population? >> no. i think you'd have secondary fallout and it would go -- i think you've got to seize it on the ground. you could do that. you'd have to hit it very extensively and try to pulverize it but there would be greater risk on that. >>brian: what are the chances of the return address on these chemicals being iraq? >> i think t
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)